The Anglobitch Thesis contends that the brand of feminism that arose in the Anglosphere (the English-speaking world) in the 1960s has an ulterior misandrist (anti-male) agenda quite distinct from its self-proclaimed role as ‘liberator’ of women.

Thursday, 21 August 2014

Perhaps the Anglo-American media needs
to start being more honest about Anglo-American women. They are, as we all
know, obese, hypergamous, deluded, obnoxious and entitled. However, the Anglo
media seems intent on projecting an entirely false image of them. Rap and
rock music videos, TV shows and Hollywood films invariably show Anglo-American females as
thin, sexualized, blonde, attractive and congenial.

We point out the dangers of such
misrepresentation in the wake of another atrocity by the IS insurgents. This
time, a young Jihadist with a British accent is seen to behead American
photo-journalist James Foley after first warning President Obama not to bomb
the IS militias. The killer’s accent suggests he grew up in South East England,
probably London itself.

Any society keeps men ‘onside’ - that
is, committed to the social order – through viable offers of sexual / reproductive
reward. Would Agamemnon’s warriors have besieged Troy without the lure of sex –
‘a Trojan wife’ – for every one of them? Would Ghengis Khan’s warriors have
followed him without ample opportunities for rape and pillage? Yet western
societies in general, and Anglosphere nations in particular, seem to expect
male loyalty and commitment with no such sureties at all. Indeed, such
societies promise a blonde, nubile, seventeen year old model for every man – then
typically fail to deliver.

What blue collar schlubs can look forward to... yeah, right.

Given this bitter reality, is it any
wonder that young men turn from western society to lives of action and
commitment in far-flung regions of the world? After all the lofty sexual
promises pumped out in movies, rap videos and adverts, the vast majority of
young men in Anglosphere countries are reaching adulthood with an overmastering
sense of having been lied to. All through their formative years they were told that
adult life would be one long feast of orgiastic delight. More, they were told
that working hard at school and college would secure fast cars, penthouses and
financial independence. Given the record levels of youth unemployment /
underemployment in the UK, these economic promises have mostly turned out to be
just another mirage.

Sexual pipe dreams...

...and a few pipe-dreams more.

Of course, broken promises are no excuse
for beheading people. As Martin Prendergast says in Falling Down: “Hey, we’ve
all been lied to”.However, we must
remember that young people view the world in somewhat ‘black and white’ terms.
They generally lack the cognitive experience to put the Anglosphere’s sexual
lies in context, as just one set of lies in a world replete with them.

Mainstream Anglo-American society tends to view young men’s defection from the
Anglosphere for the battlefields of Iraq as some kind of ‘mystery’, as in the following article:

Charlie Cooper, from British
counter-extremist think-tank the Quilliam Foundation, said there were several
steps which could transform a young man from the streets of London to a brutal
militant capable of beheading an innocent journalist.

He said: "It's a process which
involves a number of different factors. The first is an individual having an
identity crisis of some form. He might have faced racist abuse or been kicked
out of work or something like that, a crisis which leaves them feeling lost.
What happens at that point is a charismatic Islamist narrative attracts them
and they view it as providing them with answers to the trouble they have faced
in their day-to-day life. From that stage they are channelled into an extremist
path.

"To get someone from being a
non-violent extremist to going to fight in Syria and from then to decapitate an
American journalist while they're unarmed is not an immediate process but it is
certainly all interlinked. Non-violent extremism provides a mood music for
jihadism. This guy will have been recruited and bottlenecked into an Islamist
extremist ideology which then will have led him to more exposure to propaganda
from the Islamic State."

SOURCE:
Daily Express, 2014-08-21

However, in light of the foregoing
discussion, we see no complex mystery at the heart of their disenchantment. It
is a perfectly logical response to a plethora of broken promises. If the
Anglosphere is serious about keeping its young men ‘on side’, perhaps it needs
to stop lying to them.

Monday, 11 August 2014

The recent rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq is typically analyzed through the prisms of
politics, religion and economics. However, there is also a sexual dynamic to
the current conflict between Islam and the West. Indeed, it could be
argued that the whole conflict is driven by conflicting sexual agendas.
On the one hand, Islam seeks to police and regulate female sexuality. By
contrast, the West (and especially the Anglosphere) grants women free reign to indulge their preference for thugs and
misfits (see convicted felon Jeremy Meeks, below):

Click for more pics of Jeremy!

Stated in such clear, direct terms, it is little
wonder Muslim males will do virtually anything to resist such a
dysfunctional and misandrist sexual ideology. It is, as they say, a
'no-brainer'.

However, this analysis raises many tangential
questions. Why did western men allow women such 'sexual freedom' in the first
place? Probably the West's puritan-christian tendency to pedestalize
women played a significant role. At the time of emancipation (what sociologists call 'the long Sixties'), men did
not yet fullygrasp the true nature of female sexualpreference. Nor did
they appreciate the social or political implications of indulging such a preference (massive welfare bills, rising crime and declining social stability, to name but a few).

Why resist sexual disenfranchisement? Why not?

But with the
evidence of escalating social dysfunction all around us, it becomes
ever harder to grasp why so many western men still support the war against Islam. Having been shafted by female emancipation, low-status western
males still rail against Islam even though its sexual philosophy would serve most of them far, far better. Perhaps the 'sexual false consciousness' that pervades the Anglosphere
can best explain this crazy phenomenon. After all, many truck drivers and garbage collectors seriously think they have a chance with models and actresses, courtesy of the mainstream media. And if they will believe that they will believe anything.

The final question is: why are Western nations so insistent on exporting psycho-sexual anarchy to
traditionalist cultures? Having experienced the various problems
associated with unfettered female sexuality at first hand, why does the Anglosphere
wish to export them? Or even impose them by force? Again, perhaps sexual
false consciousness is the best explanation. Maybe the Anglosphere elites actually believe their own rhetoric. Perhaps they truly believe that crime, social disorder and massive Welfare bills somehow serve the social good.

Sunday, 3 August 2014

The core of our thesis holds that Anglosphere nations are,
due to their puritanical outlook, inherently misandrist and disposed to
gynocentric feminism. Unlike tradcon MRAs, we believe that Anglo-American
feminism is not a revolt against established Anglosphere culture, but rather a
heightened expression of it.

In recent months, various Anglo-American politicians and religious authorities have only
confirmed this critical assessment. After the ‘abduction’ of several hundred
girls by Boko Haram in Nigeria,
both Barach Obama and David Cameron were quick to prioritize their ‘rescue’ and
‘liberation’. Their entreaties were predictably larded with misandrist,
pro-feminist sentiments and supported by hysterical headlines in the 'mainstream' Anglosphere
media. That nations (the UK
and US) where males have record levels of school failure, unemployment, suicide
and incarceration see fit to prioritize the welfare of a few hundred Nigerian
girls shows clearly which sex they consider the more valuable. That the girls were
kidnapped by Islamic traditionalists with patriarchal views only seemed to worsen the politicians' misandrist rage.

Jolie and Hague: together at last

Meanwhile, British Foreign Minister William Hague met up
with Hollywood drug addict Angelina Jolie to
campaign against the ‘sexual abuse’ of women during international conflict:

Governments will be held to account over ending sexual
violence in war zones, Angelina Jolie has said. The Hollywood
actress and UN special envoy said a new international protocol represented the
"beginning of the fight" against the practice. Speaking to the BBC,
she said the protocol meant governments in war zones would no longer be able to
say they didn't know how to tackle the issue.

Ms Jolie said women around the world were "united in this fight
together".

The actress and UK Foreign Secretary William Hague have been co-chairing the
End Sexual Violence in Conflict global summit, which brings together
representatives from more than 100 countries.

SOURCE: BBC News, 12 June 2014

That’s right – not only are men disposable cannon-fodder,
they are also be denied recreational sex in the field; for all of history the
soldier’s primary motivation and reward. Here we see a seamless convergence of the
three core Anglo-Saxon fixations: Puritanism, misandry and gynocentric
feminism. As ever, the Anglosphere remains obsessed with quashing male sexuality
while trying to create a gynocentric utopia peopled by denatured eunuchs.

Rape of the Sabine Women: the soldier's reward

Meanwhile, the Church of England has at last allowed women
to become bishops. Saint Paul’s
admonitions against women preaching were conveniently overlooked but then,
English Christianity is so remote from scripture that no one really noticed.
Besides, the Christian fixation on feminine traits like humility, passivity and
emotionalism has always made it ripe for feminist subversion. Indeed, the
sickly Christian denial and fear of male sexuality is ultimately responsible
for the misandrist tone of Anglo-American culture. After all, Christianity is
the only Abrahamic religion that is explicitly misandrist. Both Islam and
Judaism promote healthy, realistic attitudes to male sexuality that contrast
strongly with the impracticable, damaging repression extolled by Catholics and
Evangelical Protestants alike. In short, the wayward decision to ordinate
female bishops was exactly what we should expect from a gynocentric religion
that loses thousands of men to Islam by the day.

Why not a Boy Summit to discuss failure and suicide?

Finally, to add insult to injury, British Prime Minister David Cameron has thrown his weight
behind a UNICEF campaign to end female genital mutilation:

An ardent advocate for girls’ rights, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron is
committed to putting an end to female genital mutilation (FGM) once and for
all, even if it means going after the parents who allow the brutal practice to
go on.

The prime minister announced the new measures at the first Girl Summit on
July 22, an event he co-hosted with UNICEF, which advocated for an end to FGM
and child and forced marriage within a generation. Among a number of measures,
the U.K.
has pledged 1.4 million British pounds (about $2.37 million) to launch the FGM
Prevention Program and will begin holding parents accountable if their children
are cut.

SOURCE: Huffington Post, 30 July 2014

But why is FGM so special? Genital mutilation happens to
boys all the time, for similar cultural and religious reasons. Of course,
Anglosphere politicians have twisted this reality into a ‘war on women’ that
must be stopped by any means. What else would they do? Exalting women over men
is their sole reason for existing.

The foregoing examples of Anglo-American political and theological
collusion with feminist agendas make it entirely obvious that the Anglobitch Thesis is correct, in all particulars. The Anglosphere hates men and has
nothing to offer us. At every opportunity, it seeks to impose feminist agendas
on other cultures, nations and peoples. The welfare of women is its sole
obsession, its only interest; it views men as a necessary evil at best, at
worst expendable fodder. Given the various ‘developments’ described in this post, how
can any rational person seriously deny this?